Are Home Runs Good for Baseball?

Since the end of the dead-ball era, roughly around 1921, baseball officials have assumed that home runs are good for baseball. Perhaps as a result of Babe Ruth's astounding 29 home runs in 1919 (at that time a record), these officials cooked up some rule changes that resulted in offenses scoring 40% more runs in 1921. To begin with, during the 1920 season they created a rule that baseballs had to be replaced every time they got dirty. Previously, the same ball might have been used for more than 100 pitches. Replacing the balls made them livelier. Secondly, officials outlawed the spitball, which had been a commonly and effectively used pitch during the dead-ball era.

There are other theories about why the dead-ball era came to a close, but the important thing to note is that baseball has a history of changing the rules to alter the pitcher-batter dynamic, in many cases to create more offense. Another example comes from the 1969 season when Major League Baseball decided to lower the pitcher's mound after Bob Gibson's dominant 1968 season.

Currently, Major League Baseball has decided to tolerate performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in the game as a result of the enormous hype surrounding the breaking of home run records of the past decade starting with the Sosa-McGwire home run chase of 1998, which has been credited by some as having "saved baseball." Recent efforts to curb the use of PEDs, such as the 50-game suspension handed out to Manny Ramirez, are laughable at best. Some have estimated that Ramirez stands to lose millions of dollars as a result of the suspension and that this should act as a deterrent. I would argue that losing a few million dollars is meaningless to a man who already has wealth beyond what the average working person could ever imagine.

Major League Baseball clearly has no intention of diminishing home run production. But why not? Because ticket sales might drop? Those who support the tolerance of PEDs and great home run numbers fail to recognize that all of baseball from the Major Leagues all the way down to the Little Leagues is a continuum. Six-year-olds in leagues across the country wear uniforms and bear names that imitate their Major League counterparts. We are essentially teaching our children that baseball is about home runs and that strength and acquiring it at any cost is paramount. Why not start to educate our children and the general public about Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hit streak, a feat that will never be tainted by PEDs, unless they discover a drug that increases eyesight or improves coordination. Why not teach children and the general public that baseball is not just a brutish game, but also one of strategy, speed, finesse and pitching? These things are as beautiful to watch as a towering shot, but they must be taught at an early age. Baseball is a complex game to be learned, not a spectacle to be gawked at like the WWE. Major League Baseball and the media have a role in this education.

While MLB and the media catch up with this notion of elevating the game and restoring its dignity, I would recommend some rule changes to the game consistent with many of the other rule changes throughout the game's history. To begin with, if guys want to pump themselves up, make it of no consequence. Standardize ballpark dimensions. In the old days, many parks had huge dimensions, such as the Huntington Avenue Grounds of the Boston Red Sox, where dead center was 635 feet. Give the juicers a real challenge. Another idea would be to change the ball again, make it softer this time. Finally, how about an all-out expulsion from the game following three violations of drug law. Any three of these ideas would I'm sure bring back the dignity of baseball.